Challenge to "Hannover"

[Werd]

Caught a codoh exchange I figured I would copy and paste before it disappears.

TheBlackRabbitofInlé

Graf fails also to mention, that according to Evidenzbuch 2599 prisoners were not released but sent to Auschwitz I or Birkenau.

Are you claiming these 2,599 were sent to Auschwitz I & II for gassing or death by another means?

It is true that inmates not fit for work were frequently sent from camp IV to Birkenau or Auschwitz I. It is quite possible that many of them were killed there; but I also remember quite distinctly that when I was in the main camp I afterwards met some of the inmate comrades who had been sent away from the buna camp as unfit for work enjoying good health now, from which fact I must assume that they completely recovered in the main camp after their removal from the buna camp.

- AFFIDAVIT OF ADOLF TAUB, 11 AUGUST 1947, NMT v.8, pp.812-814.

TheBlackRabbitofInlé

Right, different links, but "the same document". As I said, I saw it.

But note the questions I have put to laapatti about it.

You mean this:

Also please show us how this book supports your point:

The reference reveals the source is the so called "Evidenzbuch" of the Monowitz hospital, which gives figures only between July 1943 and June 1944.

Gee, well, perhaps you could check the dates on the first and final pages. Do you need the links?

Hannover

Also please show us how this book supports your point:

The reference reveals the source is the so called "Evidenzbuch" of the Monowitz hospital, which gives figures only between July 1943 and June 1944.

Gee, well, perhaps you could check the dates on the first and final pages. Do you need the links?

All too predictably you missed / ignored my comment which followed:

We know that Monowitz had a massive staff of construction workers prior to July, 1943.

So indeed, heretofore the 'evidenzbuch' / Monowitz hospital book' does not support laapatti's assertion that Graf's reference to Auschwitz archive document Syg. DAuI-III-5/1, 5/2, 5/3, 5/4 is one and the same.

And we see that laapatti has ignored

Henry Swiebocki reports, no fewer than 11,246 prisoners underwent surgery at Auschwitz between 10 September 1942 and 23 February 1944

So then, Black Rabbit, laapatti has not given us the support requested.

- Hannover

laapatti

Graf fails also to mention, that according to Evidenzbuch 2599 prisoners were not released but sent to Auschwitz I or Birkenau.

Are you claiming these 2,599 were sent to Auschwitz I & II for gassing or death by another means?

No, that is not the case. There are known survivors among the transferred. It is true though that in some cases the whole transfer shows at the morgue lists very soon after their transfer, sometimes even on the same day. Such cases are presented for example by Piotr Setkiewicz in Hefte von Auschwitz 22.

Concerning Swiebocki, his reference is to Auschwitz I and its hospital on time period before the deportations from Hungary, so it has nothing much to do with the Hungarian Jews.

Hannover

laapatti:

No, that is not the case. There are known survivors among the transferred. It is true though that in some cases the whole transfer shows at the morgue lists very soon after their transfer, sometimes even on the same day. Such cases are presented for example by Piotr Setkiewicz in Hefte von Auschwitz 22.

Concerning Swiebocki, his reference is to Auschwitz I and its hospital on time period before the deportations from Hungary, so it has nothing much to do with the Hungarian Jews.

Known survivors? Survivors of what? Alleged gassings which you cannot prove? Present your proof for alleged gassings at Auschwitz. No dodging.

Hungarian Jews is not the point of the Swiebocki numbers. The point is that Jews were given massive amounts of medical care prior at Auschwitz in spite of the storyline that says those unable to work were gassed. Piotr Setkiewicz, in spite of his lack of awareness, confirms that fact. Thanks for that.

I note you have not shown that Graf's referenced document, Auschwitz archive no.: Syg. DAuI-III-5/1, 5/2, 5/3, 5/4 is compatible with the 'evidenzbuch'. I'm challenging you again to do so. No dodging.

I note you have ignored the fact that large numbers of Jew construction workers were working at Monowitz prior to the beginning date of the 'evidenzbuch', hence the obvious medical services that any large body would have required. No dodging.

- Hannover

TheBlackRabbitofInlé

Also please show us how this book supports your point:

The reference reveals the source is the so called "Evidenzbuch" of the Monowitz hospital, which gives figures only between July 1943 and June 1944.

Gee, well, perhaps you could check the dates on the first and final pages. Do you need the links?

All too predictably you missed / ignored my comment which followed:

All too predictably you missed / ignored the fact that I'd provided the rather obvious answer to your actual point there.

All too predictably you missed / ignored my comment which followed:

We know that Monowitz had a massive staff of construction workers prior to July, 1943.

Monowitz was a prisoner camp established in late 1942; purposefully or out of ignorance, on this thread you've been confusing it with the entire Buna Works, claiming prisoners from Auschwitz and Birkenau who worked at the Buna Works were Monowitz prisoners.
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?p=72424#p72424

According to Piper et al.'s Auschwitz 1940-1945 v.1 (p.308), the Monowitz hospital opened in October 1942 when KZ Monowitz was established, and originally the hospital had two barracks but eventually spread to nine.

Whether this is true or not—I don't know, but it seems unlikely that the hospital was opened so early. If it is true, then perhaps there's a prior Evidenzbuch for the Monowitz hospital's first nine months, or perhaps it was such a small hospital originally that no records of patients was kept.

So indeed, heretofore the 'evidenzbuch' / Monowitz hospital book' does not support laapatti's assertion that Graf's reference to Auschwitz archive document Syg. DAuI-III-5/1, 5/2, 5/3, 5/4 is one and the same.

No, it does. Laapatti gave a thorough explanation about Graf's/IHR's likely typo. And if not the "Evidenzbuch", what do you think Graf was referring to? Graf's 766 patients registered as dying is the same figure given in Berg & Brock's book quoted above.

Let us not forget, that for most of page 2 of this thread you were disputing even the existence of the so-called Evidenzbuch:

laapatti has failed to show his 'evidenzbuch'.

I tried to search for 'evidenzbuch monowitz ', here:
http://auschwitz.org/en/search/search.html
results = zippo.

A claim that a Graf reference number is to an 'evidenzbuch' which they have not proven? An 'evidenzbuch' which they cannot show?

Indeed, making claims that a referenced document refers to an 'evidenzbuch' while producing no proof of that claim is spurious. And then, where is this 'evidenzbuch to review? So far, zippo.

And we see that laapatti has ignored

Henry Swiebocki reports, no fewer than 11,246 prisoners underwent surgery at Auschwitz between 10 September 1942 and 23 February 1944

He didn't ignore it, he just doesn't contest what Świebocki said.

For the record, Henry Świebocki wrote in the Graf-cited passage.

Nach dem Krieg wurden außerdem auch zwei Operationsbücher der chirurgischen Abteilung des Häftlingskrankenbaus im Block 21 des Stammlagers Auschwitz aufgefunden. Häftlinge versteckten diese Bücher während der Evakuierung des KL Auschwitz im Januar 1945, als sich dazu in dein im Zuge der eiligen Auflösung des Lagers ent-stehenden Durcheinander eine Möglichkeit bot, und verbargen sie höchstwahrscheinlich in einem Ofen in den Räumen der Sauna des Stammlagers Auschwitz." Die Operationsbücher enthalten die Namen und die Häftlingsnummern von Häftlingen, die Daten der Eingriffe, die Diagnose und die Art der Operation. Sie umfassen den Zeitraum vom 10. September 1942 bis zum 23. Februar 1944. In diesem Zeitraum wurden, wie die Eintragungen belegen, 11 246 Operationen unterschiedlicher Art vorgenommen.

So then, Black Rabbit, laapatti has not given us the support requested.

There's been plenty of spoon-feeding of documents etc. going on on this thread, none of them courteously acknowledged, most of them spat out.

Hannover

- Again, you ignored my statement:
"We know that Monowitz had a massive staff of construction workers prior to July, 1943."
which followed my request from laapatti to support his claim.
Ignoring it will not make it go away.

The mentioned Buna works were located AT Monowitz. It appears that you are confused, or desperately splitting hairs.

You missed the point, it's not when the Monowtz hospital opened, but when there were workers there necessarily receiving medical care. Follow along, please.
you said:

Let us not forget, that for most of page 2 of this thread you were disputing even the existence of the so-called Evidenzbuch

False again. I insisted on seeing it, not hearing about it. Please review the quotes you posted, but obviously did not read. No strawmen, please.

And as I suggested, and apparently it went over your head, the books is generally referred to as the 'Monowitz Hospital Book', rarely the 'evidenzbuch' (evidence of what?), hence my difficulty finding it.

laapatti certainly did ignore Swiebocki, I see no responses from him, which makes sense because Swiebocki supports the premise of the OP and utterly debunks the gassings claims.

Speaking of 'courteous', look who's talking, absolutely hilarious. Any day now I expect you to revise yourself all the way back to the gas chambers.

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.

TheBlackRabbitofInlé »

Again, you ignored my statement:
"We know that Monowitz had a massive staff of construction workers prior to July, 1943."
which followed my request from laapatti to support his claim.
Ignoring it will not make it go away.

No, that's a fraudulent claim; I didn't ignore it, I used it to show that you're ignorant/misled about the Buna Works and Monowitz. I now see that it's clearly the former.

The mentioned Buna Works were located AT Monowitz. It appears that you are confused, or desperately splitting hairs.

You're not even close.

Monowitz is the German rendering of Monowice, which was prior to KZ Monowitz, and is now again, a Polish village. I've been there incidentally, have you?

Monowitz was built on the south-east corner of the Buna Works. This diagram is from a hoaxster's book, but he's still better informed than you:

You missed the point, it's not when the Monowtz hospital opened, but when there were workers there necessarily receiving medical care. Follow along, please.

That makes no sense.

How would prisoners receive medical care at Monowitz if indeed the hospital was not open?

Let us not forget, that for most of page 2 of this thread you were disputing even the existence of the so-called Evidenzbuch

False again. I insisted on seeing it, not hearing about it. Please review the quotes you apparently did not read. No strawmen, please.

You certainly appear to be disputing it's existence:

laapatti has failed to show his 'evidenzbuch'.

I tried to search for 'evidenzbuch monowitz ', here:
http://auschwitz.org/en/search/search.html
results = zippo.

A claim that a Graf reference number is to an 'evidenzbuch' which they have not proven? An 'evidenzbuch' which they cannot show?

Indeed, making claims that a referenced document refers to an 'evidenzbuch' while producing no proof of that claim is spurious. And then, where is this 'evidenzbuch to review? So far, zippo.

And as I suggested, and apparently it went over your head, the books is generally referred to as the 'Monowitz Hospital Book', rarely the 'evidenzbuch' (evidence of what?), hence my difficulty finding it.

Oh deary, a new low. You're claiming credit for something I told you about, and implying its significance eluded me:

It's noted as "Hospital Book of Monowitz" in the Exhibit List:

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?p=72470#p72470

Speaking of 'courteous', look who's talking, absolutely hilarious. Any day now I expect you to revise yourself all the way back to the gas chambers.

Whatever.

[Werd]

More...

hannover

Get serious, Black Rabbit. Look at the map you posted, they're practically on top of each other. You are torturously splitting hairs, tres embarrassing.
A guess what:

Monowitz (also called Monowitz-Buna or Auschwitz III)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monowitz_c ... ation_camp

Ahem.

Once again, you post quotes from me which never say that the 'evidenzbuch' does not exist, never. Thanks for demonstrating that fact.
I said:

laapatti has failed to show his 'evidenzbuch'.

A claim that a Graf reference number is to an 'evidenzbuch' which they have not proven? An 'evidenzbuch' which they cannot show?

Indeed, making claims that a referenced document refers to an 'evidenzbuch' while producing no proof of that claim is spurious. And then, where is this 'evidenzbuch to review? So far, zippo.

So, we never see 'it does not exist' anywhere.
In debate its rather normal to demand to see a document that is alleged, repeatedly, if need be. Perhaps you have lower debate standards. That would be my observation.

Claiming credit for what? That my not knowing 'evidenzbuch' really meant 'Monowitz Hospital Book', hence I wasn't able to find it quickly? What's to take credit for? Don't flatter yourself? When in a hole, stop digging, Black Rabbit.

Cheers, Hannover

TheBlackRabbitofInlé

Get serious, Black Rabbit. Look at the map you posted, they're practically on top of each other. You are torturously splitting hairs, tres embarrassing.

Yes, I can see why you're embarrassed for having confused a vast industrial estate with a relatively small concentration camp.

But you're still doing it I see....

A guess what:

Monowitz (also called Monowitz-Buna or Auschwitz III)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monowitz_c ... ation_camp

Ahem.

Citing Wikipedia as an authority!

Further comment would be superfluous.

Perhaps you have lower debate standards. That would be my observation.

Another ad hominem.

Claiming credit for what? That my not knowing 'evidenzbuch' really meant 'Monowitz Hospital Book', hence I wasn't able to find it quickly? What's to take credit for? Don't flatter yourself? When in a hole, stop digging, Black Rabbit.

Not worthy of a response.

Hannover

Confused? Hardly. I suggest that you are doing a bit of projecting.
Here's more for you:

Auschwitz | Buna/Monowitz > Buna/Monowitz Concentration Camp
http://www.wollheim-memorial.de/en/kz_bunamonowitz_en


caption: Buna/Monowitz concentration camp

Buna-Monowitz
http://holocaustmusic.ort.org/places/ca ... -monowitz/

Buna-Monowitz, otherwise known as Auschwitz III, was ...

Cheers, Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.

TheBlackRabbitofInlé

Confused? Hardly. I suggest that you are doing a bit of projecting.
Here's more for you:

Auschwitz | Buna/Monowitz > Buna/Monowitz Concentration Camp
http://www.wollheim-memorial.de/en/kz_bunamonowitz_en


caption: Buna/Monowitz concentration camp

Buna-Monowitz
http://holocaustmusic.ort.org/places/ca ... -monowitz/

Buna-Monowitz, otherwise known as Auschwitz III, was ...

Yes, Monowitz (renamed Auschwitz III on November 10, 1943—NI-317) was sometimes referred to as Buna; I can think of one famous contemporary German document which proves it.

But you're still confusing the actual labour camp with entire IG Farben Buna Works.

Both YOUR sources clearly detail the difference:

In late October 1942, I.G. Farben opened its own corporate concentration camp, Buna/Monowitz, to house the predominantly Jewish prisoners who had to do forced labor on the plant grounds of I.G. Auschwitz. The camp was built on the site of the Polish village of Monowice, whose inhabitants had been made to leave their homes.

http://www.wollheim-memorial.de/en/kz_bunamonowitz_en

The idea of a large, central work camp to aid the Nazi battle against the Soviet Union had existed since the early months of the war, and Buna-Monowitz opened its gates in the autumn of 1942.

The German company IG Farben had established a large rubber factory near the Polish town Monowice (Monowitz), and the Buna-Monowitz camp was built as a housing facility for the slave labourers of the factory. The prisoners here included Jews and non-Jews from all over Europe.


Aerial photograph of the Auschwitz area showing a partial view of the IG Farben plant and the associated Monowitz (Auschwitz III) forced labour camp.

http://holocaustmusic.ort.org/places/ca ... -monowitz/

Cheers, for proving yourself wrong.

Hannover

Again, you're not paying attention. Try your best to keep up, please.

What I have demonstrated and proven over & over is that Monowitz/Buna are routinely referred as one and the same in the same sentence. I'm confusing nothing. Were there differences in the two? Of course. I never said otherwise. You are simply employing yet another strawmen.

I loved your map & photo, proved my point completely.

Here we go, and all in the same sentence:

https://2012ej10cpenglish.wikispaces.com/Buna
Auschwitz III, also called Buna or Monowitz ...

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Poland/Au ... story.html
The factories at Monowitz were built by the IG Farben company, which was attempting to produce synthetic rubber, called Buna.

https://sites.google.com/a/ncps-k12.org ... 12_7_per1/
This Web Quest is based on Buna-Monowitz, the Concentration Camp also known as Auschwitz III

http://www.quora.com/The-Holocaust/Is-i ... used-to-be
Is it possible to visit the Auschwitz Monowitz camp where the IG Farben Buna Werke used to be?

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/auschwitz-libe ... mp-1484633
I would argue that Monowitz, or Monowitz-Buna, is less known ...

http://alphahistory.com/holocaust/nazi- ... -monowitz/
Buna (Monowitz) itself had about 10,000 prisoners.

Anyway, do try to get over it. Go hang out with 'Nessie", or something.

Prost, Hannover

TheBlackRabbitofInlé

What I have demonstrated and proven over & over is that Monowitz/Buna are routinely referred as one and the same in the same sentence.

If that had been the point of the exercise, you'd deserve a gold star. Pity for you that it wasn't.

Yes, idiots do confuse Monowitz with the entire Buna Works.

Here's you confusing Monowitz and the Buna Works:

laapatti said:

Certain problems with this too. First of all, there was no camp at all in Monowitz in July 1942, or a hospital for that matter. The camp and the hospital started their operation only in October 1942. The reference reveals the source is the so called "Evidenzbuch" of the Monowitz hospital, which gives figures only between July 1943 and June 1944. Graf fails also to mention, that according to Evidenzbuch 2599 prisoners were not released but sent to Auschwitz I or Birkenau.

- Incorrect:

"Trucks began bringing in the first KL prisoners to work at the plant's construction site in mid-April 1941. Starting in May the workers had to walk 6 to 7 km from the camp to the factory site. At the end of July [1941], with the laborers numbering over a thousand, they began taking the train to Dwory station. Their work included leveling the ground, digging drainage ditches, laying cables, and building roads. The prisoners returned to the construction site in May 1942 and worked there until July 21, when an outbreak of typhus in the main camp and Birkenau stopped their trips to work. ..."

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?p=72424#p72424

The mentioned Buna works were located AT Monowitz. It appears that you are confused, or desperately splitting hairs.

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?p=72504#p72504

Get serious, Black Rabbit. Look at the map you posted, they're practically on top of each other. You are torturously splitting hairs, tres embarrassing.

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?p=72521#p72521

Were there differences in the two? Of course. I never said otherwise. You are simply employing yet another strawmen.

So you've finally learnt the difference between KZ Monowitz and the IG Farben Buna Works!

You can play your semantic pedantry games, but everyone can see you've just about-faced.

littera scripta manet.

[Werd]

Hey blackrabbit, this last post you made that ended Italian and the green smiley has been deleted. Now this appears...

Moderator » Wed May 20, 2015 11:00 am

TheBlackRabbitofInle:

What I say here is supported by others at this forum via PMs to me.
Your shrill posts are adding nothing to the intent of this thread. Also, the irrelevant tedium that you seem determined to debate is a unnecessary distraction.
Your initiation of unnecessary aggression can be found in other threads as well, we're not sure why, but it will stop. Perhaps you're conditioned by the other, lesser forums that you post to. Understandable to be sure.
We know about your remarkable, awesome contributions in unearthing many of the British decrypts, kudos to you; but that does not give you a free pass to be abusive at this forum. I've let this thread run wild, my mistake, but now we must get back to a more reasonable style of debate.
Thanks, M1

Let this be a warning to others here. This forum will stay a step above other forums who discuss this subject.

[blake121666]

BRoI is being overly hostile on CODOH lately. He should tone it down a bit. I think his points would hit just as hard without the in-your-face attitude (particularly on little tangential details).

It's good for all to learn the distinction between Buna Works and Monowitz. I always see them referred to as if they were identical. I think Hannover will probably remember the distinction from now on though!

[theblackrabbitofinlé]

Hey blackrabbit, this last post you made that ended Italian and the green smiley has been deleted. Now this appears...

Moderator » Wed May 20, 2015 11:00 am

TheBlackRabbitofInle:

What I say here is supported by others at this forum via PMs to me.
Your shrill posts are adding nothing to the intent of this thread. Also, the irrelevant tedium that you seem determined to debate is a unnecessary distraction.
Your initiation of unnecessary aggression can be found in other threads as well, we're not sure why, but it will stop. Perhaps you're conditioned by the other, lesser forums that you post to. Understandable to be sure.
We know about your remarkable, awesome contributions in unearthing many of the British decrypts, kudos to you; but that does not give you a free pass to be abusive at this forum. I've let this thread run wild, my mistake, but now we must get back to a more reasonable style of debate.
Thanks, M1

Let this be a warning to others here. This forum will stay a step above other forums who discuss this subject.

Thanks a lot for copying all that over to here Werd.

I see that the Moderator/Hannover went on to delete his own comment (the one quoted above).

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f ... 7&start=30

What I say here is supported by others at this forum via PMs to me.

What kind of person PMs the Moderator instead of confronting someone on the thread? I have pretty strong suspicions about which particular codoh poster that would have been.

BRoI is being overly hostile on CODOH lately. He should tone it down a bit. I think his points would hit just as hard without the in-your-face attitude (particularly on little tangential details).

It's good for all to learn the distinction between Buna Works and Monowitz. I always see them referred to as if they were identical. I think Hannover will probably remember the distinction from now on though!

I thought I was toning it down blake; Hannover has a long history of deleting posts by me which show up his ignorance, so I was trying to be careful not to give him any excuse to delete my posts. Admittedly I seem to have lost my patience with him when writing the post which he delete.

Hannover's is notoriously hostile. And although that he may not agree that that word describes his manner, he's frequently admitting that he's a straight talker, blunt, to-the-point, or words to that effect.

I'm in full accordance with something Friedrich Jansson said to Hannover/the moderator two years ago:

If you're going to taunt Mr. Terry, Hannover, it would be classier not to delete his replies. If you're going to dish it out you have to be willing to take it.

More generally, I would suggest it makes sense to devote less energy to declaring victory and more energy to winning victories.

https://holocausthandbooks.com/viewtopi ... e88#p58103

[Nessie]

Hannover is a monumentally egotistical, cowardly, controlling, bully. His behaviour helps to destroy denier/revisionisms credibility. It would not matter if BRoI was ultra polite or fucking rude, if Hannover feels slighted in any way he deletes.

The irony is that his heavily censored forum is supposedly about open debate

[Werd]

They have had justification for kicking trolls off, but they take it too far sometimes.

[theblackrabbitofinlé]

Hungover also deletes his own posts; one he posted with his moderator's hat on last month advising my post had been deleted...

Hannover's deleted another of my posts over at codoh, plus he must've put my posts on approved only status or whatever.

Rabbit,
Your recent low class RODOH-like post was deleted. I previously asked you in a PM to cease your personal attacks. I will not allow such talk at this forum.
M1

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?p=71436#p71436

viewtopic.php?p=59482#p59482


has itself been deleted.
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f ... 1&start=30


As Hungover likes to boast there's no censorship on codoh, it is a good idea, from his perspective, to remove evidence of censorship.
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7322

[Nessie]

More evidence of the heavily censored CODOH forum

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=18034

and

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=24162

[Bob]

Actually Hannover with his censorship is really a light weight when compared to heavy censorship of revisionists on Icke forum, banned again and again when a local obnoxious and the most active holocaust promoter "boots" (language resembling DasPrussian´s obscene and aggressive style) and his notorious copy paste stuff was deconstructed, they always help him by deleting my comments and then ban me, but I´ve noticed that also some other members were banned and they avoided further discussion with this entity.